with the V2 Nikon managed to create a camera without any noticeable design. The V2 looks like they have thrown things onto a pice of clay and looked where the stuff sticks.

The V1 had an iconic design, the whole camera looked easy to use, clean, reduced to the essence of photography. The front of the V1 could be used as an icon on a computer screen for "camera".

The V2 as a completely out of proportion viewfinder wart, a grip that looks like it came from the spare-parts box of some rejected project. Nikon did one good thing, they moved the mode dial away from the thumb rest.

Lookup the dpreview viewer comments, how many people seem to agree with you:

Words like "ugly", "horrible" or even "hideous" appear in the commentaries. A while ago, a long while ago, Nikon used an Italian designer to make the stunning F4 body. Why in gods name they did not employed a form designer for this camera?

It may be a very capable device, I will give it a time to decide if I will be able to adapt my senses to the ah so unique "symphony of disproportion and eye insulting shapes."

Thomas

Everything else is more or less just a way to make the V2 look like a "enthusiasts gear-head not interested in photography" geek camera. The V2 has nothing that makes it easier to use for an amateur or enthusiast.

The best joke is the integrated flash with a guide number of 5. Close to the lens and weak: ideal for getting really bad flash pictures.

I hope Nikon realizes their mistake and make the V3 look more like a V1 (with the mode dial moved like on the V2 and better placed dial for the aperture in M mode).